|
|
 |
| Growth terms with/out a time-varying ... |
 
|
| Message/Author |
|
|
| YUN HWAN KIM posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - 12:43 pm
|
|
|
Dear Muthen(s)
Please let me ask if I can interpret the results as below.
In the growth model of "A", both linear and quadratic terms were significant. After including "B" as a time-varying covariate, the linear term became much smaller in its magnitude (about two-thirds disappeared), and the quadratic term was no longer significant.
And I did the same after switching "A" and "B". In the growth model of "B", both linear and quadratic terms were significant. After including "A" as a time-varying covariate, the linear term became bit smaller in its magnitude (about one-fourths disappeared), and the quadratic term was still significant.
Based on the above, can I interpret (or infer) that the effects of "B" on the growth of "A" seem to be greater than the effects of "A" on the growth of "B"?
I would sincerely appreciate your answer. |
|
|
|
|
| Your time-varying covariates probably have a trend. You can explore that by growth modeling. |
|
|
| YUN HWAN KIM posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - 9:19 pm
|
|
|
Dear Muthen,
I appreciate your quick answer. And your guess is correct. Both "A" and "B" presented similar curvilinear trends over time. And they are theoretically expected to have a mutual influence.
In order further to figure out the relations between the two (one of them was the above question: if the effect of "A" on "B" is stronger than that of "B" on "A"), I would ideally run a parallel process growth model, but it comes with numerous estimation problems.
My last resort was, therefore, to run a growth model of "A" while including "B" as a time-varying covariate and to run a growth model of "B" while including "A" as a time-varying covariate (and I obtained the above-mentioned results). Seeing that "B" diminished the growth pattern of "A" to a greater extent than "A" diminished the growth pattern of "B", I reasoned that this may indicate the stronger effects of "B" on the growth "A" than the other way round. But I am wondering if this reasoning makes sense (although I am aware that I did not technically test it), or if it is too much stretched-out interpretation/inference. |
|
|
|
|
| This general question is suitable for SEMNET. |
|
|
| YUN HWAN KIM posted on Friday, September 28, 2018 - 11:06 pm
|
|
|
Dear Muthen
I appreciate your answer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
